Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Just to be clear, it appears Blake is adding additional defendants, not plaintiffs.[/quote] Oof I believe Justin’s side but that doesn’t sound good for him. [/quote] Can you expand on why? Do you think this is Jed Wallace? I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop on that. The retaliation claims are much stronger than her harassment claims and the Jed Wallace issue is a major problem for Baldoni and the PR folks. But especially Baldoni because it's very hard to argue against retaliation if it turns out he hired Jed, just because of what Jed does. He can argue the PR folks were there to protect his rep, not to take down Lively. But Wallace is a hired gun who destroys reps online (like Heard's).[/quote] Dp I can’t remember exactly but I think Justin’s complaint is arguing they didn’t need Jed to do what he does because the Blake hate was organic, right? I find that hard to believe but I also wouldn’t find it unbelievable if he didn’t have to either[/quote] Seems like hiring someone to retaliate is a problem, even if they didn't actually retaliate. Just like hiring a hit man is a crime, even if they botch the job. [/quote] Is this true? Like say they hired Wallace but he never actually had bots posting for Baldoni, would the mere act of hiring him with the *intention* of astroturfing be retaliation? I find this aspect of the case very interesting from a legal perspective.[/quote] No, it would not be. Isn’t that obvious? There has to be actual harm to her as a result of the retaliation campaign. If he retained someone, and they did no work, Lively has not been harmed.[/quote] Do you know that because you're an attorney or does it just seem like common sense to you? People are posting conflicting things.[/quote] I am an attorney.[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics